Here is the rejection summary, https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/17255800. While my changes are drastic, IMO they don't at all change the goal of the owner. If anything, I believe the answer was/is at risk of deletion, as it looks like a comment (and is formatted like one). I felt like I was transforming what was essentially a comment on Chris's answer in the same thread to an answer that could stand on its own in terms of word choice.

I also wonder if part of the problem was the lack of familiarity with CUDA, and the reviewers might have been confused as to why I added parts to the code part of the answer (the answer basically allows CLion to parse .cu device code, but neglected to allow for .y, .z and gridDimin the post, I added those and an explanation of the odd fake struct syntax placed there, as comments expressed confusion with the answer).

If this was just prettying up a post I wouldn't be so peeved, but I legitimate used this post for my own resources and added the edits in large part to help myself. Now I'm going to have to literally copy my own edit elsewhere to use since this post on its own doesn't give me enough information if I wanted to reference it again, and I think that on its own should tell that there was at least something right with my edits.

I feel there is enough objective value in this edit that they should have improved it instead of rejecting it. My additions to the actual code alone prove that.

IMO: the only edit necessary in that post is to remove "thanks!"... Adding in gobs of text is a big no-no.
– GimbySep 7 '17 at 14:12

3

I think its safe to say that the poster was attempting to thank Chris - It isn't safe to say unless the OP explicitly says it. You also made changes to the code beyond fixing errors: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/260245/…
– BSMPSep 7 '17 at 14:21

1 Answer
1

If you want to completely re-write someone else's answer, then you should be posting your own answer with your own solution (possibly citing the other answer if yours is derived from theirs, as appears to be the case here), not making radical semantic changes to someone else's answer.

If it were a smaller semantic change, you could have posted it as a comment, but for a change this significant it really belongs as a new answer, especially considering, as you said, "If anything I believe the answer was/is at risk of deletion" (I'm not sure that's true, in fact, I'm quite confident it's at no risk at all of deletion), but if you're worried about it, better to answer than to comment.

Does it? If I were to post my own answer I would essentially be copying the work that the original poster did, is that fine when 90% of my answer it just the same as his?
– opaSep 7 '17 at 13:57

3

@snb Yes, it's fine to create a derivative answer that is based off of the work of another. You obviously need to cite the answer, and indicate what work is your own and what is not. It's also important that, when citing another answer, you're actually adding to it, and using their work to augment your own original contributions, and not just strictly copying their own work, which certainly applies to your case (given that much more than 10% of your new answer is your own original content, in fact more than half of it is your own original contribution).
– ServySep 7 '17 at 13:59

1

OK with your edit now I think you are missing something. Please look at my edit comment and the original answer. The poster is literally thanking someone, I assumed with high confidence that was indeed Chris. I believe you think when I used "I" I was referring to myself? That is not the case, I'm assuming the voice of the original poster, as I feel that is what they were trying to convey, just with less words when simply saying Chris. I feel I was simply re-wording what they were stating initially, expanding upon where they presumably found the information, and expanding on the core ans
– opaSep 7 '17 at 14:01

@snb Chris is the name of the author of the post you were editing.
– ServySep 7 '17 at 14:04

6

@snb - Part of the confusion might be due to the fact that the answer you were editing was left by Chris Olivier and I think the one that you believe he was thanking was Chris Kitching. The "thanks to Chris" portion could easily be misinterpreted as thanking the former Chris.
– Brad Larson♦Sep 7 '17 at 14:04

1

@BradLarson Thats exactly it, it didn't even occur to me that author of the edited posts name was chris, I was talking about this answer when I said "chris" stackoverflow.com/a/42288429/2036035
– opaSep 7 '17 at 14:05

@Servy Does the fact that I was talking about this answer change anything?
– opaSep 7 '17 at 14:07

4

@snb It doesn't make your edit appropriate. That you were adding your own entirely new answer as an edit to another person's answer in their voice is still inappropriate and meriting rejection.
– ServySep 7 '17 at 14:09

@Servy In my view I've changed the "thanks" to reference the post where the poster got the idea from, I've expanded the second edit that was made to be more descriptive of why this answer is original from Chris Kitchings, those I don't see as new, but correct me if I'm wrong. The only new part was expanding the Cuda struct and adding grid dimension (with an explanation of why the struct is there in the first place). If you think that alone is still grounds for a new answer I'll make one right now.
– opaSep 7 '17 at 14:14

4

@snb So you think that the original author intended to write the code that you wrote, but they mistakenly didn't and provided what they originally submitted instead? I...don't buy that at all. Nor can I see any evidence at all that any of the explanations are anything but your own original works, and not at all the work of the author of that post, making that edit unacceptable. Again, if you want to create your own new answer, even if it's based, in part, on another answer, then you post your new answer and cite the original as appropriate.
– ServySep 7 '17 at 14:18

@Servy How do I tell If I should improve someone else's answer or make my own ignoring the other edits I made?
– opaSep 7 '17 at 14:22

5

@snb if you need to write new code that was not present in the post nor in the comments by the author there is 99% chance that you should be writing new post instead of edit.
– Alexei LevenkovSep 7 '17 at 17:06